[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 7 KB, 189x267, zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5428577 No.5428577 [Reply] [Original]

Is any Zizek worth reading,and if so,then what?

>> No.5428582

define worth reading

>> No.5428590

>>5428582
Are any of his ideas new or does he present old ideas in an interesting way?

>> No.5428601

isn't he just a youtube celebrity ??

>> No.5428607

>>5428601
apparently he has written quite a few books

>> No.5428609

Here's Chomsk's opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWRqPbwwYS0

>> No.5428614

>>5428577
Nothing by Zizek is worth reading. Nothing by Marx is worth reading. Go read Bakunin and quit yer Commie Jew'in.

>> No.5428618

>>5428577
he has interesting stuff to say about ideology

he just repeats it a little too often

>> No.5428634

>>5428614
I'm just curious about idea's m8,pls no bully

>> No.5428641

>>5428590
He supposedly reads Hegel through Lacanian lenses. And vice versa too. And his values are influenced by Marx, but different, updated. Most people don't know, but he was a fan of Derrida in his younger/middle years. But always a Hegelian, from the start.

>>5428601
No, he has a very long history and good education in philosophy. He slowly became famous somewhere at the end of the 80s or at the start of the 90s, when he started writing and publishing books in English language. Debenjak is the guy behind him, if you get to the origins of the story, simply speaking.

>> No.5428649

>>5428634
Just banter Lad.

>> No.5428659

>>5428649
ok,and while we're on the subject where should i start if i were to read bakunin?

>> No.5428666

What I have read and seen of Zizek did not strike me as profound or original. He is a neo-Marxist who does nothing but regurgitate the ideas of other intellectuals and theorists. He's inexplicably popular and you're better off just reading the people he cites extensively.

>> No.5428678

>>5428609
#rekt

>> No.5428708

>>5428666
>you're better off just reading the people he cites extensively.
Is lacan a hack like Freud?

>> No.5428725

>>5428708
Essentially, yes, but he's more interesting to read than Zizek.

>> No.5428737

>>5428708
Yes in the sense that Freud isn't a hack. I strongly dislike him myself, along with Lacan, but such accusations are just really low. Read him yourself and read him well.

>> No.5428767

>>5428737
Freud is pretty much a hack. His work is more valuable to English majors than to psychologists these days.

>> No.5428796

>>5428767
What makes him a hack? Also, the common perception of him is a caricature.

>> No.5428801

>>5428767
You have not read Freud and don't know anything about psychology

>> No.5428817
File: 6 KB, 125x110, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5428817

>>5428737
>Freud isn't a hack
Kek, read a modern physiology textbook

>> No.5428827

>>5428817
Yeah, I'm sure you've read plenty of criticism of Freud to be able to show us, poor idiots, why Freud is a hack. Go on, anon, we're listening...

>> No.5428858
File: 132 KB, 788x1024, 4735_4178.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5428858

>>5428659
By picking up one of his books and reading it. Statism and Anarchism and God and The State will get you in the right direction.

>> No.5428877

Ask yourself, do I even fucking care what this retarded hack thinks?

>> No.5428898

i liked the sublime object of ideology, op

>> No.5428920

>>5428614
>>5428858
>Bakunin
Lol, now this is actual shit. Anarchism has moved far beyond these first idiots who dreamed of some magic free land without power. Check "post-anarchism" or whatever they call it.
Also, read this:
https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-the-politics-of-ressentiment-saul-newman
Far from being a well written article, but it might give you a sense of how shitty that position is.

>> No.5428933

>>5428827
Many, many moons ago, when I was nought but a freshman in high school, I took a high school level introduction to psychology class, and it was the first of many, many entry-level psych classes which whole-heartedly denounced all of Freud's works as the ravings of an oedipal lunatic.
But hey, what do I know, I'm just a professional psychiatrist.

>> No.5428945

I read this a while back and found it funny.

http://www.somethingawful.com/news/broke-slavoj-girls/1/

To those familiar with Zizek's writings, how accurate is that spoof?

>> No.5428976
File: 14 KB, 238x256, stalin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5428976

>>5428858
Remember that time anarchists successfully lead a working class revolution modernizing and lifting millions out of poverty?

>> No.5429009

>>5428817

Don't you think that's a little extreme?

>> No.5429069

The Sublime Object of Ideology is worth reading, because it will change the way you look at ideology.

>> No.5429081

>>5428920
Post-anarchism is basically just Stirnerist anarchism, which is of course a lot different from the utopian anarchism in that it doesn't consider anarchism an actual state of things.

>> No.5429091

anyone got the link to that video where zizek is showing his dildos in his apartment and telling his jewish friends to fuck off?

>> No.5429125
File: 9 KB, 152x133, 12382.strip.sunday.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5429125

>>5428609
>Chomsky

>> No.5429145

>>5428609
>An analitical philosopher thinks that a continental philosopher gets caught up in theories too much while ignoring structural bases.
The video ended and I knew nothing new about anything.

>> No.5429167

>>5428609
>can you tell me what the work is
>i can't find it

this some 5th grade tier shit-talk, he only attacks his personality w/o any criticism of his books

>> No.5429187
File: 12 KB, 180x178, 1404243525328.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5429187

>>5429125
>>5429145
>>5429167
>paying attention to Chomsky

>> No.5429218

>>5428976
Remember how socialism failed and anarcho-collectivism succeeded during the Spanish Civil War? No you didn't know that tidbit. Until some assholes shot everyone in the community. They were passivists.

>> No.5429229

>>5428609
Zizek's rebuttal can be found here
http://history.genius.com/Noam-chomsky-chomsky-zizek-debate-annotated

>What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever!

>> No.5429279

>>5429229
That debate was just laughable, you could sense how Žižek thinks of Chomsky's opinions of him as a stupid annoyance without much value, not something to invest much work into. But that's also why Žižek's replies were not really great, though still good enough.
Terence Blake wrote some interesting stuff about the "event":
http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/?s=chomsky

>> No.5429372

>>5429279
well the thing is, that Chomsky has terrible political stances at times, everyone knows it except him. But still, his main work lies in nature of subjective linguistics, which is far more valuable than whatever Zizeks psychoanalysis makes up.
You can see that Zizek is addressing only Chomskys weakest spots.

>> No.5430423
File: 8 KB, 221x228, kappa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5430423

>>5428609
>dismisses Hegelian tradition because sentences too complex to translate in analytic linguistic philosophical terminology, i.e. word content v.s. sentence structure (hegel)

>> No.5430433

He's like a not funny diogenes.

>> No.5430466

>>5430433
>not funny

What? Humor is Zizek's best trait.

>> No.5430565

>>5430433
Zizek is the funniest philosopher since Max Stirner

>> No.5430589

>>5430423
I'd like to read Hegel on word content v.s. sentence structure? Where should I look?

>> No.5430626

Why is philosophy worth reading? Other than the satisfaction smug college kids get from namedropping, what use does it have? Do you guys read it because it's fun?

>> No.5430636

i heard he and chomsky wrestled in bed and zizek came out on top

>> No.5430643

>>5430636
i don't know why this is funny because the idea of it is revolting

>> No.5430648

Plebeian here. I've always been interested in Zizek, Chomsky, and Lacan. If you had to recommend one book from each, which would you recommend?

>> No.5430665

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jpnLoBQgGw

>> No.5430684

of course not.

just watch his videos while you eat popcorn to replace stupid tvshows

>> No.5430694

>>5430565
>>5430466
I've extensively followed the entire Chomsky vs. Zizek rap-battle-esque feud and there is one thing that should be obvious to anybody.

Both of these people are in completely different fields from each other. Zizek, ironically, is PURE PHILOSOPHY, which basically means he can get away with saying anything and still be defended because of the subjective mysticism inherent in his field. Let's not mince words: Lacan, who is a major influence on Zizek (as is obvious to anyone who has read him or seen his documentaries), is a fucking hack. If there are only a few things Chomsky is right about outside his narrow field of linguistics, it is that Lacan is a disingenuous charlatan who is completely self-aware of what he is doing. This should be self-apparent to anyone who has both read Lacan's writing and who has read about Lacan's personal life, especially in regard to how he handled his psychiatric patients.

That being said, Chomsky isn't without blemish either. He's said plenty of shit that made my eyes roll, not the least of which are his views on evolution and how it shapes human language. His views on literally anything outside his area of expertise are pedestrian at best, and if anyone is looking for evidence of this I'd suggest you watch the Michel Gondry "documentary" titled "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?".

Chomsky has a point when he challenges Zizek to explain, in simple terms, what the fuck exactly he is talking about, but this is a criticism that extends to Continental Philosophy in general, so at the core it's not really a personal charge against Zizek.

Both have interesting insights and I hope to see them respond in kind with actual arguments instead of sidestepping.

>> No.5430707

>>5430648
>Lacan
Read his entire Seminars series back to back. There's a lot of shit-flinging that goes around when discussing Lacan, and while some of it justified (and some of it is not), there is no substitute for actually reading him. Come up with your own opinion. It helps to have a background in psychology.

>Zizek
The Sublime Object of Ideology is essential reading when it comes to trying to understand the continental shitstorm that is Zizek. Depending on your definition of charisma, he certainly has an endearing aspect to his public persona, which is why I would also recommend watching The Pervert's Guide to Cinema as well as The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, which both adresses his grievances with his popular portrayal as well as gives some fantastic insight into his view of Lacan.

>Chomsky
Literally any of his books on linguistics. Steer clear of anything involving politics, or really anything that has anything to do with subjects outside the area of linguistics. For an enlightening capture of Chomsky in person, watch Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?, by Michel Gondry.

>> No.5430718

>>5428577

surprised no one posted this yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIT5LPxzDE

>> No.5430925

>>5430718
man this isnt even good
this is golden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4

>> No.5431625

>>5430718
>>5430925
This is pretty shitty. It's like making fun of the cover and not the book, because they haven't even read the book.
Here's my choice, not good, but somewhat better:
http://youtu.be/-doRuonMoxw
http://youtu.be/Whcj3oFPXOM
http://youtu.be/h-yobiA5uTc
http://youtu.be/A6Rlpi-TnIg

>> No.5431673

>>5430707
>Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9c4xJEP6eI
This looks great.

The few things I've heard of Chomsky on politics weren't particularly bad, I remember some stuff about controlling public opinion which is a huge problem in modern democracy.

>> No.5431676

>>5430707
>Read his entire Seminars series back to back. There's a lot of shit-flinging that goes around when discussing Lacan, and while some of it justified (and some of it is not), there is no substitute for actually reading him. Come up with your own opinion. It helps to have a background in psychology.

But Lacan has absolutely fucking nothing to do with psychology! That's like saying to understand his mathemes, you need a background in maths. No, you don't. Just as you don't need a background in neuroscience to know that he is pulling shit out of his ass about the human brain.

>> No.5431684

>>5431625
>>5430925
>>5430718
fucking scrubs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IveT0e0Vo84

http://vimeo.com/72982163

>> No.5431698

all Zizek parody is shit, in some way he cant be parodied

>> No.5431704

>>5430694
>Chomsky vs. Zizek rap-battle-esque feud
no such thing exists

>> No.5431711

>>5428577
> "Pop"-Zizek/Lighter books
First as a Tragedy, then as a Farce
Zizek's Jokes
Living in the end times

> Proper academic Zizek
Sublime Object of Ideology
Welcome to the Desert of Real
Less than Nothing

>> No.5431717

>>5428614
Its funny because Bakunin was the guy who translated Das Kapital in Russian and found his books on political economy useful to his last breath.

>> No.5431723

>>5431673
>chomsky
>one of the greatest minds of our time
oh god how low we have fallen for this to be the case

>> No.5431730

>>5428767
>>5428817
Why is it that analytic psychology people cannot withstand the idea of multiple traditions of psychology and psychiatry existing?

>> No.5431733

>>5430589
Just get a copy of Phenomenology of Spirit and Phenomenology of Mind and read them side to side. Former is word content, latter is sentence structure.

>> No.5431734

>>5430694
> Both of these people are in completely different fields from each other. Zizek, ironically, is PURE PHILOSOPHY
Its funny because Zizek is an educated psychoanalyst.

>> No.5431745

>>5431734
Actually a professor of Philosophy, but nice try.

>> No.5432335

>>5428933
>professional psychiatrists
>not quacks
>implying psychoanalysis isn't more legitimate than the bunk that passes for "therapy" these days

>> No.5432416

>>5431723
He is at the very least greater than most people on tv. If you feel we need smarter people around then you should step up and take a righteous place in modern culture.

>> No.5432503

I'm starting to think Zizek's popularity lies in his eccentric personality, and cult of personality he maintains, rather than in the strenght of his arguments

>> No.5432514

>>5432503
I am already eating from the trashcan *snort* all the time. The name of that trashcan ish ideology.

>> No.5432525

Who is this guy? Is he a philosopher?

>> No.5432575
File: 110 KB, 576x576, LO107_3_grande_1024x1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5432575

>>5431733

>> No.5432584

>>5432503
>starting to think

please, it couldnt be more obvious. youre slow.